War Drums: North Korea edition

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Which is why it's incumbent upon us, or the US, to "persuade" the Chinese position from maintaining the status quo in the Korean peninsula to applying true pressure on the DPRK to cease, desist, and legitimately come to the table (and accept international checks on any potential agreements).  This will not be achieved by threatened China wholesale as Trump is doing, because we are now at a form of economic MAD with them.  

However, that does not mean we don't have employable tactics to try and leverage China to this point (some of which are detailed upthread in a link I posted a month ago).  Such an effort is immeasurably more desirable than the Dr. Strangelove insanity of preemptively nuking North Korea, let alone leaving their citizens to their own devices in the fallout.  Such a position is so odious, impetuous, and morally bereft I will not respond to it directly.  Cuz my mom always said if you don't have anything nice to say...

Word out of China has repeatedly been that their desire to take a firm hand with Kim has been seriously undermined by constant Trump/US inflammatory rhetoric/escalation and occasional potshots at China itself. And that's understandable. It's hard to take a consistent line when every few days you're asked if you agree that NK will be destroyed with unprecedented violence if they say more threatening things.

If you're China you have to distance yourself from that, which then obviously mitigates how firm you can then be, and they're also occasionally faced with the US kinda saying it's their (China's) baby to fix or fire and fury.  It's a weird situation when China is the only adult in the room. And no, contrary to some Trumpist fantasies, I don't think it's 'good cop/bad cop', nor is that a good approach with nuclear escalation. You don't play good cop/bad cop in hostage negotiation or with jumpers, for example. 

But honestly, the US has to decide if Kim is rational or not. Either one indicate a line to take, but treating him like he's both is obviously doomed to failure, possibly in spectacular fashion. If he is rational then he's not going to launch short of being under attack, so there's zero point in escalation except increasing the chances that something will be misinterpreted as an attack. If he's irrational then you go about planning for w/e you need to do without constantly poking the bear with nukes. Even if the idea is that you're talking past him to his circle, hoping they'll take action, you won't get far by constantly threatening holocaust...that both forces people closer together and confirms Kim's entire argument for why NK has an existential need for nukes.

And that's my last point: forget the arguments about whether or not small powers become immune once they go nuclear and/or is it then necessary for true independance, and just think about this specific point: until fairly recently, Kim's position that NK needs nukes because the USA is an imminent threat who could at any time threaten holocaust to get their way was cited as evidence for Kim's insanity/instability. And now? Thanks, Donald.

[James Arryn]

One further point re: nuclear peace of mind. Most of the planet has lived with nukes pointed at them for a long time now. That the US consider's it's peace of mind worth millions of dead Asians kinda reinforces the belief that having a nuke pointed at you by the US isn't really and less troubling that by some tinpot despot. Because, if the US does what so many Americans think it should and launch a 'preemtpive' strike because of another nation merely possessing the capability of hitting an American city, that would bring the score up to

USA 3 

Rest of Earth 0

...in terms of nuclear attacks. Who ought the world be worried about?

[DMC]

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Word out of China has repeatedly been that their desire to take a firm hand with Kim has been seriously undermined by constant Trump/US inflammatory rhetoric/escalation and occasional potshots at China itself.

Well, I think privately China is happy with Trump's bellicosity in the sense it gives them an excuse to drag their heels on taking a firm hand with Kim plus allows them to legitimately admonish the US for playing a role in escalating tensions.  But yeah, the public posture would be what you're saying.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

It's a weird situation when China is the only adult in the room. And no, contrary to some Trumpist fantasies, I don't think it's 'good cop/bad cop', nor is that a good approach with nuclear escalation. You don't play good cop/bad cop in hostage negotiation or with jumpers, for example. 

There is certainly something to be said for fostering uncertainty of your actions on behalf of your adversary, as analysts inclined towards game theoretic solutions will tell you.  However, the seeming attempt to revitalize the Nixon/Kissinger Madman theory should be informed by two key notes on its execution.  First, while the effort was to get the Soviets to get Hanoi to the table, so in that way it was was similar - a fundamental difference is Hanoi did not have nukes themselves nor any capabilities approaching North Korea.  Second, it's very arguable whether the strategy even worked.  Nixon's foreign policy legacy is in opening up China, reaching detente with the Soviets and what resulted (e.g. SALT I, the Helsinki Accords, etc.), and fomenting the schism between the two communist powers.  It was certainly not in the long goodbye of ending the Vietnam War.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

But honestly, the US has to decide if Kim is rational or not. Either one indicate a line to take, but treating him like he's both is obviously doomed to failure, possibly in spectacular fashion.

As I said last month, it is important for any administration to create the impression that Kim is irrational and that we think he's irrational even while understanding privately what the vast majority of foreign policy experts agree upon - the DPRK regime is and has been rational for decades.  So, that's the line I think they should be taking - and yes, consistency is certainly essential.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Even if the idea is that you're talking past him to his circle, hoping they'll take action, you won't get far by constantly threatening holocaust...that both forces people closer together and confirms Kim's entire argument for why NK has an existential need for nukes.

Exactly.  Acting as irrational as Kim's public statements simply plays into his hands, grants China diplomatic leverage, and undermines our leadership role with South Korea and Japan.  Not to mention, btw, bafflingly accusing the ROK of appeasement and insanely threatening them with a trade war.

[Ghjhero]

Ho hum! In the latest escalation, Kim Jong “Rocket Man” Un seems to be considering testing a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific in response to Trump’s comments at the UN the other day. My personal theory is the Baby Boomers got dissatisfied with the anticlimactic end to the Cold War and are intent on taking themselves out with nuclear fireworks one way or the other. 

[all swedes are racist]

i'll have you all know i already knew what dotard meant and didnt have to look it up becuase of fantasy literature

[DreamSongs]

What I found frightening in the backdrop of reading the news overnight is that some young person decided that an entire paragraph needed to be devoted to explain a single word.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, DreamSongs said:

What I found frightening in the backdrop of reading the news overnight is that some young person decided that an entire paragraph needed to be devoted to explain a single word.

Link?

[Red Tiger]

16 hours ago, DreamSongs said:

What I found frightening in the backdrop of reading the news overnight is that some young person decided that an entire paragraph needed to be devoted to explain a single word.

I have no idea what you are talking about, I second Scot's question.

[GAROVORKIN]

20 hours ago, Ghjhero said:

Ho hum! In the latest escalation, Kim Jong “Rocket Man” Un seems to be considering testing a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific in response to Trump’s comments at the UN the other day. My personal theory is the Baby Boomers got dissatisfied with the anticlimactic end to the Cold War and are intent on taking themselves out with nuclear fireworks one way or the other. 

 

If Rocket Man does what he claims he can, This could turn  into  a  major war on the Korean Peninsula.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Looks like China might be starting to side with Fat Man over Little Boy...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41370722?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Werthead]

This is getting seriously worrying. Trump's unpredictability has had some useful applications (like bewildering Russia) but in this case it is starting to get close to triggering a conflict. If that conflict is inevitable and if the US is prepared to do what it takes to defeat North Korea and minimise loss of life (which is close to impossible) - such as preparing aid to send to South Korea or having a larger build up in the area - that's one thing, if still terrifying, but they don't seem to even be doing that. If this turns into a shooting war and the US doesn't have more forces in the area, things could go quite badly wrong quite quickly.

[Which Tyler]

Wrong thread

[Horza]

In the absence of talks, a North Korean attempt at a long range missile test capped with the detonation of a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific is very likely, and not just because Trump and Kim are feuding.

Having successfully tested their HS-14 ICBM on lofted trajectories taking it well into space, the DPRK needs to test it on a standard, flatter trajectory to be certain that it has the ability to reach the continental US. At a minimum this means firing another missile over Japan and far out to sea. Having now fired two HS-12 IRBMs over Japan without incurring the promised annihilation, it seems likely that KJU will be thinking about another flyover at a minimum, with or without a nuclear payload.

At the same time, their now-thermonuclear program has hit the limits of what their underground testing facilities can contain. Demonstrating to the world (and to themselves) that they have the means to land an H-bomb on major US cities must be a tempting prospect even outside the current back-and-forth. As it is, KJU is in a white-hot race to demonstrate that North Korea has minimum credible deterrence vis the US, hoping that that will be enough to end the threats, verbal and otherwise, that the US has issued against his political life.

Still, it's a huge risk. To avoid an absolutely crushing political backlash North Korea would at minimum have to post some kind of advance warning about where and when they'd be emptying a little bucket of sunshine. Even then, breaking the taboo on atmospheric nuclear testing is a hard move for a country otherwise angling for international sympathy against a belligerent orange kleptocrat. France came under severe pressure to end its Pacific testing program, and people like France.

That's before we get to the orange one, and his response to this. He's been mostly deflecting the pressure to 'do something' about North Korea towards China, but nine months, dozens of missiles and one h-bomb later that's an increasingly stale act, one he might not be willing to repeat against a backdrop of sizzling orcas and flash-boiled whales. There would remain no good options but you tell him that. It'd be bad. Very bad.

[Lordsteve666]

What do people think the reaction would be if KJU really did carry out an atmospheric test? I mean despite all the vocal displeasure from the US, SK, Japan and other places; missiles are still flying over Japan regularly and nobody does anything.

I mean how many times does Japan have to say "this is not acceptable", yet do nothing, before their voice becomes pointless.? 
How often must Trump threaten the NK leaders with annihilation before he to becomes a lame duck?

Despite everyone and their mother saying what NK does is wrong or "the last straw" not one person has actually tried anything remotely like acting against these missiles.
If Japan really is so concerned why not shoot one down to make a point? They have every right to shoot something flying over their country, especially in light of the current threats and talking points.

But what if NK launches an armed missile aimed out to sea with the intention to detonate it? They'd surely give some warning? Perhaps not...i guess that would too easy. Based on past experience if people didn't know it was armed i'd guess nobody would shoot it down either, then get a big wake up call when it detonates.

How do the big powers respond to that?

[Which Tyler]

I'm not convinced that shooting down missiles is quite as easy as you seem to be suggesting

[James Arryn]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41391978

 

North Korea says US has declared war. Is reserving the right to shoot down US aircraft in or out if NK airspace, and is hoping the world remembers the US started it.

Hopefully this is just more rhetoric, but it sounds very bad.

[Lordsteve666]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

I'm not convinced that shooting down missiles is quite as easy as you seem to be suggesting

It probably isn't, but nobody is going to admit that their THAD or Aegis systems are no use are they. You'd have thought with all the posturing and shouting going on someone would have at least tried to shoot down something, just to prove they weren't totally spineless.

[ljkeane]

1 hour ago, Lordsteve666 said:

It probably isn't, but nobody is going to admit that their THAD or Aegis systems are no use are they. You'd have thought with all the posturing and shouting going on someone would have at least tried to shoot down something, just to prove they weren't totally spineless.

I'd think trying to shoot down a missile you're aware is getting shot into the sea and failing would be somewhat counterproductive.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Lordsteve666 said:

It probably isn't, but nobody is going to admit that their THAD or Aegis systems are no use are they. You'd have thought with all the posturing and shouting going on someone would have at least tried to shoot down something, just to prove they weren't totally spineless.

The problem as mentioned in another area is that you have two options, both of which aren't great.

You shoot something down and fail. You just showed your defense isn't as good as advertised.

You shoot something down and succeed. This actually reduces the risk of missile launches, and makes you more likely to have to shoot down further ones - which brings you back to the chances that you'll ultimately fail.